Decided on February 18,2016

Kamakshi Tradexim (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Harsha Devani, J. - (1.) Since both these petitions arise out of Common Order No. 1351-1352/12-CX, dated 1-10-2012 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, and the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in Special Civil Application No. 14616 of 2015.
(3.) The petitioner, a Company was engaged in the business of manufacture and export of excisable goods like Mouth Freshner (viz. Pan Masala) at the relevant time, but now the petitioners' manufacturing and export business has come to a complete halt on account of severe financial crisis being faced by the petitioners. At the relevant time, the petitioner-Company was registered with the Central Excise Department as a manufacturer. In the normal course of its business, the petitioner-Company purchased various consignments of Rainbow Mouth Freshner (Pan Masala) in bulk pack of 40 kilograms from one M/s. Unicorn Industries, having its factory at Jorthang in the State of Sikkim. The goods purchased in bulk pack of 40 kilograms each, were processed by the petitioner-Company, and the goods so purchased were repacked in smaller packs/tins and thus, processes of repacking from bulk to retail packs and also labelling of such retail packs had been undertaken by the petitioner-Company, which constituted "manufacture" as contemplated under Chapter Note No. 4 of Chapter 21 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner-Company was, accordingly, liable to pay excise duty on the goods so manufactured, that is, goods packed in retail packs and affixed with the appropriate label. The petitioner-company had export orders of these goods and therefore, while exporting the goods at the price of Rs. 1822/- per kilogram, the petitioner-Company had discharged duty liability of excise on these goods in accordance with Central Excise law. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the petitioner-Company was entitled to rebate of excise duties paid on these goods exported by it and therefore, the petitioner-Company had been exporting these goods under claim of rebate by following the procedure for exporting the goods. The petitioner-Company lodged rebate claims in connection with the duties paid on eighty seven consignments of Pan Masala manufactured and exported by it in the month of June, 2011. The total duties paid on the goods exported in June, 2011 was Rs. 2,81,33,060/- and hence, the petitioner-Company claimed the above aggregate amount of Rs. 2,81,33,060/- as rebate. A show cause notice dated 18-11-2011 came to be issued to the petitioner-Company proposing to reject all the rebate claims on the ground that condition laid down at Serial No. 2(e) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, stood contravened as regards the rebate claims. In response thereto, the petitioner-Company filed a detailed reply dated 7-12-2011. After hearing the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the rebate claims vide Order-in-Original No. 148 to 234/REB/CEX/2011, dated 13-1-2012. Being aggrieved the petitioner-Company went in appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad who allowed the appeal with consequential relief vide Order-in-Appeal dated 19-3-2012. The Excise Department did not accept the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and filed a revision application against the same before the Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi. The Joint Secretary, Government of India, by the impugned order dated 1-10-2012, held that the case was required to be remanded for a fresh decision. The revisional authority, in the order made on the Revenue's revision application, observed that the outcome of DGCEI investigation and final decision in classification dispute by common adjudicator Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi were required to be taken into account and the applicability of Condition No. 2(h) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) was also required to be examined.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.